Concerns with the quality of Build SFU’s outreach are unfounded

As a former outreach assistant for Build SFU and a political science student who holds firmly to the ideals of a just and fair democratic process in which all individuals’ voices should be heard, I believe that the Simon Fraser Student Society is proceeding in a fair manner by calling a revote on the passing of the debenture for the Student Union Building (SUB) and the Stadium, as well as the bylaw amendment. 

At the Annual General Meeting (AGM) on October 22, certain members of the Society were unable to exercise their right to vote due to safety issues in accommodating all students into the SFU Theatre where the meeting was held. This has led to questions about the merits of the outreach done by Build SFU workers, such as myself.

It is my belief that, now more than ever, students should hear both perspectives on what exactly occurred during and prior to the AGM, in order to make a sound judgement on a project that holds their best interest at hand at the newly dubbed Special General Meeting (SGM) on January 19.

Having formally done outreach with Build SFU, I can say without a doubt that the majority of students that I and my respective peers spoke to were thrilled to see the projects’ successes and the finalization of the SUB’s design, all of which were created through student-led discussion and feedback. The Build SFU initiative prides itself on engaging the student body with the project, and looks to positively promote the SUB and Stadium, each of which house components implemented following a student feedback survey which took place last year.

To say that Build SFU unfairly influenced the vote at the AGM is misguided at the least.

To say that Build SFU or any of its members unfairly influenced the vote on the day of the AGM is misguided at the least. Our outreach aimed to promote the communal benefits of the SUB and stadium, and not once did I or any of my members attempt to bias a student to vote in favour of the project.

In recognition of attending the meeting, students were entered into a draw to win prizes, and the first 300 students received a pound of chicken wings that were granted to both ‘yes’ or ‘no’ voters. These incentives were merely meant to thank everyone who came out to voice their opinions on the project as a whole, and were never meant to force or lead individuals to favour a certain ideal.

Build SFU ensured through its outreach assistants that all pertinent information was made available to students, including the student-paid levy which was showcased daily at the table and listed per-semester the costs of the building itself. It is my belief that the large voter turnout at the AGM was driven by a positive desire to see a success for the Build SFU project, which could only have been made possible by the majority of undergraduate students supporting the construction of the building itself.

Without this support, our outreach could not have been such a successful experience. I am thankful to have been given the opportunity to work with like-minded individuals towards the success of an initiative that I believe will only better our university, and help us provide future SFU students with a place of belonging.

With the upcoming SGM in mind, I urge all SFU undergraduate students to hear both sides of the issue and come out to voice their opinions on a matter that will crucially decide the future of a project that, for me, has been and will always be designed for the students, by the students.